2026-10-19 - Government Operations Committee

00:23The mayor was shaking.

00:24>> All right. Good evening, Bangor. It's

00:266:32 p.m. And much to the delight of

00:28government operations committee

00:30everywhere, this is a special meeting of

00:32the government operations committee. I'm

00:34the committee chair, Michael Beck.

00:35Joining me on the committee here tonight

00:37is Councilor Fish, Councilor Malloy,

00:39Councilor Deane, and Councilor Walker.

00:41Also joining me at the table is city

00:43assistant manager Courtney O'Donnell,

00:46city council chair Haas, Councilor

00:48Leonard, as well as Councilor

00:50Flewelling, and I believe Councilor

00:52Carson will be joining us back

00:54momentarily. The first item on the

00:56agenda tonight is a resolve accepting

00:58and appropriating of $6,000

01:01from Johns Hopkins University as

01:03partners on a National Institutes of

01:06Health Arise Grant to increase access to

01:09PrEP. And I believe the public health

01:12director, Jane Daniell, will be joining

01:13us.

01:18>> All right, good evening.

01:21Yes, I'm actually quite excited about

01:23this opportunity. Johns Hopkins, as you

01:26know, is a leading expert in public

01:30health. And they specifically have a

01:31couple of people who work around HIV

01:34prevention.

01:35We um

01:37applied with them for a National

01:39Institutes of Health Grant. This is

01:42money actually just for basically staff

01:45time and some support of bringing our

01:47community partners together to put

01:49together a plan on um

01:53reducing the barriers for access to PrEP

01:55or pre-exposure prophylaxis.

01:57That plan then gets submitted for a

02:00possible next level of funding to

02:03support the operations of that plan.

02:07>> Are there any questions on this result?

02:12>> I would question

02:13>> Mr. Councilman.

02:14>> What's the potential cost to the city in

02:16this plan? You're saying it's all going

02:18to be grant money even

02:20even after you do the research and apply

02:23if they give you a grant, the city will

02:25be providing no funds.

02:27>> This doesn't pay for any the city money

02:30doesn't pay for any staff time, any

02:32materials, anything associated with this

02:34planning. The

02:36the up to $6,000 will actually offset

02:40any staff time that goes into working on

02:43this proposal.

02:48>> What about once the grant is the second

02:51grant comes around, what's the city's

02:52cost?

02:53>> So what we'll do as part of this work is

02:55we put this plan proposal together with

02:58the help of Johns Hopkins. That gets

03:00submitted to the NIH. If that's awarded,

03:04it will be a whole other set of funds to

03:06actually pay for staff time and other

03:08materials to implement a plan. That will

03:11not so also will not be on city dollars.

03:13>> So we don't have any potential dollar

03:16cost.

03:17>> The city taxpayers, no.

03:19>> Okay.

03:22Are there any questions on this result?

03:25I was just going to make a comment that

03:26you know with obviously you know the

03:28update in cases still going on, you know

03:31the timing is going to be better. So

03:32that's exciting for all of us I think.

03:35Uh this need a recommendation to full

03:37council from the committee?

03:39>> Yes.

03:39>> All in favor of that motion?

03:41>> Second.

03:42>> Well, I mean so

03:44unless you want to make the motion.

03:49>> [clears throat]

03:50>> I accept an appropriate up to 6,000 from

03:52Johns Hopkins

03:54as partners on National Institute for a

03:57health rise grant increase access to

03:59prep.

04:01>> Is there a motion?

04:03We have a second?

04:04Any doubt on this item?

04:07All right, then I'll move to full

04:08council with this committee's

04:10recommendation.

04:12That brings us to the second item,

04:14remote public comment policy,

04:17which was something that Councilwoman

04:20come to the table.

04:22Did you Did you want to introduce this

04:24Councilwoman or did you want to

04:25>> I'm sorry. Councilwoman, do you mind

04:27doing the special item for with Director

04:29Gunder Man and then we can do the remote

04:32comment after?

04:33>> The special item?

04:34>> Yes, for the Sorry, your agendas were

04:37updated this afternoon. We sent an email

04:39for warming center proposal and

04:41financial support.

04:42>> Okay, I remember three. Got you. Got

04:44you. Yep. Yep, we can go ahead.

04:45Actually, for this one I have a conflict

04:47of interest cuz Together Places

04:48involved.

04:49>> Oh, I got

04:49>> So, we'll have to

04:51name someone to chair temporarily to get

04:54to that item.

04:56>> I nominate Councilman Dean.

05:10So, we will move on to the third

05:13item on the agenda, which is regarding

05:16the warming shelter proposal and

05:18financial support.

05:20And Councilman will lead off this item.

05:23>> So, the last time I spoke with you was

05:25it just a week ago? Last week ago?

05:28There were a few things to follow up

05:30with you around this funding.

05:32So, the first two are the requests that

05:35you have already spoken about for the

05:37Mana and for the Well. And the last we

05:40spoke to you, we were still waiting to

05:41hear back from the Mana if that if that

05:43funding which was in the total amount,

05:45thank you Councilwoman Walker, $5,000

05:47Amount still needed?

05:49>> [clears throat]

05:49>> City City Manager Lear has still waiting

05:52for a callback from them

05:54about that funding, if that's still

05:56needed.

05:58In terms of

06:01>> Yes, go right ahead.

06:02>> Council Bluhm.

06:03>> I don't know if this exact amount is the

06:06amount needed, but I did get a message

06:08earlier today from Bill Ray from Mana,

06:10so I they do still need funding.

06:13Cuz he was asking about the status of

06:14it, so.

06:16So I Yeah, I I will

06:18>> You can call City Manager Lear and ask

06:20him to call

06:21back. That would be

06:22great.

06:22Thank you.

06:23>> Cuz the the message I got was through

06:25Facebook, so I will just ask him to

06:28circle back.

06:28>> Thank you.

06:29>> And if I could just mention if we could

06:32try to get an answer before

06:34Council meeting so we have some time to

06:36digest it. I think it's always helpful.

06:37>> Absolutely. Thank you.

06:43In terms of the Well, so the Well

06:45originally requested $15,000.

06:48When the last I spoke to you, we were

06:50breaking up the amount of $5,000 coming

06:53from a heating assistance fund and then

06:55$10,000 coming from community

06:57development block grant.

07:00When we received the financials from the

07:02Well, which you have a copy of, and I

07:04spoke with Mel from the Well today, the

07:07$5,000 in heating assistance

07:10isn't appropriate for their budget

07:12because their heating is paid for

07:15through the church. So that's something

07:17that the church provides for them, but

07:19they still um

07:22they still could use the $10,000 from

07:24the community development block grant.

07:26You'll see from their financials that

07:27they provided a budget in 20 that ended

07:30in 2025,

07:31and they have now the proposed budget.

07:34That's 30 That's Sorry, that $25,000 in

07:37donations at the top includes the

07:39$10,000 from the city and then the

07:42$15,000 that they received from other

07:45funding.

07:47And then they've outlined their costs.

07:49Um as you can see, there's an increase.

07:51I don't think that's a surprise to

07:53anyone. Prices have gone up. They're

07:55implementing a new program

07:57um around particularly food.

08:00Um and so

08:02with your approval,

08:04we would be able to award them $10,000

08:07from community development block grant.

08:11That then sort of bleeds into the next

08:13item, but that what was also provided in

08:16your packet is the revised community

08:18development block grant budget that

08:21Robin Doneiger put together, um which

08:23you also requested in the last time that

08:25we met.

08:28Um

08:31Before I go on to Together Place, is

08:33there any questions or any

08:35clarification?

08:36>> I actually I don't have to raise my

08:37hand, do I? But I have a question.

08:40The $5,000 that will go back into the

08:42heating assistance since we're not using

08:44it, will be used for

08:46exactly what purpose, do you think?

08:47>> So for that heating assistance fund,

08:50that's foundation dollars that we've

08:51gotten over the years.

08:53Um we will are looking We're proposing

08:56to allocate some of that to Together

08:57Place as part of their warming shelter.

09:00And then what we have done is that

09:02funding can also be used for people who

09:04need personal individuals, residents of

09:07Bangor, that can use assistance with

09:09their heating. So like we did last year,

09:12there's actually a few different buckets

09:14that we can support house support

09:16heating. We have our set general

09:17assistance, and then in the past we

09:19would have this voucher program that was

09:21put together by a group of lawyers in

09:23the city. We're waiting to hear if that

09:25resource is still available. And then if

09:27none of those buckets someone qualifies

09:29for, they would then qualify for this

09:31funding. We did some advertising for

09:34this funding with the Eastern Agency on

09:36Aging put on an event, I think about a

09:38month ago, and then we're having a flyer

09:41put together that we'll be putting out

09:42to

09:43the local entities. We are specifically

09:47gosh, I spoke with our community service

09:49director, we're specifically looking at

09:51people over 60 years of age and older

09:54and at about 150% of the federal poverty

09:57level.

09:58So, that would be able to support people

10:00who are in their homes struggling to pay

10:03for heat, aren't able to get heat from

10:05the other resources including LIHEAP.

10:08We do our best to make sure that

10:10we also recognize that what we have for

10:12funding can go quite quickly. A thousand

10:14dollars can fill a propane tank, but

10:16we'd rather be using those funds than

10:19having them sort of sit.

10:21>> Exactly. Thank you.

10:23>> Also, Chris.

10:24>> Um yes, I actually have a question to

10:26follow up on that that you just shared

10:28with us. And I've asked this question in

10:30a couple other places. I realize in

10:32years past

10:34this state we've we've ended in a

10:36situation where the state had remaining

10:39funds for heating assistance. And as I

10:40think about our elderly population and

10:43I'm thrilled to hear about that event

10:44with the Eastern Center on Aging, I also

10:46recognize that there are is a pocket of

10:50um

10:51elderly constituents that we do not

10:54reach because they do not reach us

10:57and otherwise are not connected to the

11:00organizations and agencies where we

11:02would be able to let people know that

11:04this funding is available. I don't

11:06expect you to have an answer to this

11:07tonight, but I I've asked the police

11:09department and other

11:11stakeholders around the city the city if

11:13we could start to brainstorm

11:15ways that we think we might be able to

11:18better reach people who would otherwise

11:20not normally be reaching.

11:22Um cuz I think about those years past

11:24where the state had

11:26extra funding available for heating

11:27assistance and that was based on numbers

11:30of people that they expected to be

11:32for those and were clearly missing

11:34people who are eligible for that.

11:36And of course I don't have a great

11:38solution to that besides just like

11:39knocking on doors and you know, nosing

11:42my way into people's business, but I

11:44think it would be really awesome to

11:46think about more

11:48more creative ways for us to try to

11:49reach people who are not yet able to

11:52reach.

11:53>> Absolutely because that's also a

11:54population that often doesn't use social

11:55media.

11:57Sometimes I can think of it in my own

11:58experience reaching the caretakers, you

12:00know, the children that are helping to

12:02care for their parents, other

12:03caretakers, the neighbors. Um I think

12:05this is really when we reach people who

12:07are often isolated, it really means um

12:10making sure that it's like the cocoon

12:12effect, right? Making sure that everyone

12:14around those people are well informed so

12:16they can support somebody.

12:19>> And the other thing that I want to add

12:21to that is a lot of the elderly find an

12:24application or form very confusing. Yes.

12:26And so even if they want to apply

12:30they're daunted by that and they do not.

12:32>> So they would need help with that.

12:34>> As they age it gets harder and harder to

12:36actually get that filled out.

12:37>> Absolutely. We would walk anybody

12:39through any of that processes that we

12:41have in our office.

12:42>> I might take you up on that.

12:43>> [laughter]

12:43>> Absolutely.

12:47So that is for the well, um

12:50in terms of the last agenda item being

12:53the opera the as-needed warming shelter,

12:57um particularly the coldest night.

12:59Um so the last conversation we had was

13:02going back

13:03getting what the revised community

13:05development block grants budget would

13:06look like if the Mana, the well, and

13:11this as-needed warming shelter, which

13:13would happen at Together Place, um how

13:15would that impact the CDBG budget? So

13:18Robin has kindly put this together. If

13:20you take a look in that first table,

13:24um this would fall under the public

13:26services. So that public services

13:29expenditure cap is at $155,733.

13:36If we added the funding that we spoke

13:39that we've just spoken about in addition

13:41to the 25,000 that was already allocated

13:44to PCHC for their gaps in care,

13:48that total in that public services

13:50funded activities would have been

13:51132,000.

13:53That mean would mean that there was

13:55still about 23,733

14:00still in that

14:02bucket for 2026 to 2027.

14:10>> Any questions?

14:11>> [clears throat]

14:13>> How's the fish?

14:14>> Um,

14:15do you see anything that we might not be

14:18aware of that may need some of that

14:2223,000?

14:25>> That's a hard question.

14:27>> [laughter]

14:28>> Um, I right now I don't have anything in

14:31front of me that seems most realistic.

14:36There's probably

14:38things that can come up.

14:40Um,

14:42what we do know at this time according

14:44to the data is that

14:46on the coldest nights we need more

14:49capacity for warming shelters than what

14:52we have available right now.

14:55And I

14:56am not aware of any other funding

14:58source. I you know, I spoke with the Hub

15:007 coordinator. There's There's no other

15:02sources that are available at this

15:04moment to be able to get

15:07support for for this type of a service.

15:13>> Of that 23,000, that's for services. You

15:16could not use that for fuel assistance,

15:17correct?

15:19It would be for services.

15:20>> I'm not aware. That might be a question

15:23for Anne Craig or if

15:26um

15:27Robin assistant case on the I'm not

15:28aware.

15:29>> Do you know any assistance?

15:30>> Can you repeat the question? Sorry.

15:32>> Could heating assistance be used in that

15:36public services capacity bucket of

15:38$23,733?

15:41>> They can use that amount for

15:44>> But could it be used for fuel assistance

15:46if that was needed sort of the end of

15:48winter?

15:50>> I know there are restrictions on things

15:54like supplies or you know, support

15:57supplies like that.

15:59Um

16:00I'd have to find out. I'm not

16:01comfortable saying yes or no.

16:08>> Any other questions before I move down

16:10the table? Yes.

16:11>> I

16:13Yes. Uh sorry again. I think about a

16:15word my question here. So

16:18I know you had given us like some

16:20numbers about like approximately how

16:23many nights it you know, it's below a

16:25certain temperature and that's what that

16:28um

16:29that number is based on for the Together

16:31Place.

16:32If we should happen to have a warmer

16:34than usual winter and they only have to

16:37open up half the amount of time,

16:41do we still give them that full amount?

16:43>> We could we could build a contract that

16:45does it. I mean basically this amount is

16:47based upon um 60 days

16:51of cold, snow, freezing rain

16:55um at $44 $44 a bed a night. Um you

16:59could build a contract that

17:03does a combination. There are some

17:05things that you're going to have to pay

17:08for whether it's open

17:10every night or a few nights um such as

17:14keeping the space warm.

17:16Um

17:17But there are some costs that could be

17:20that could vary based upon how well how

17:23long they were open how many nights they

17:24were open for. So you could build a

17:25contract that reflects that.

17:27>> Yeah, I I guess I would be in favor of

17:29something like that because I mean if we

17:30have an extremely warm winter and they

17:33open very little then you know like

17:35it would be nice to

17:37use some of that money for something

17:39else that

17:40some other need.

17:41>> One of the key factors to this is to

17:44provide some

17:47like

17:49some staffing time on a routine basis

17:53because a staff needs to be on call and

17:56ready to set up the warming shelter at

17:59and they're monitoring. One of the

18:01things that we spoke about is exactly in

18:03this situation that if this on-demand

18:06shelter wasn't open and we were paying

18:09some hours of a person's time then what

18:11they could be doing is helping at the

18:13other warming shelters. They do HMIS

18:15data entry or doing some outreach. So we

18:18could again as as forming the contract

18:21that could be delineated.

18:26Councilor Fish?

18:27>> So

18:28so if I'm reading I'm

18:31>> [clears throat]

18:31>> it'd be on the nightly warming shelter

18:35and it's 115,000.

18:37Is that correct or not?

18:38>> Yeah, it's 115,116. Yeah.

18:42>> And um

18:43in in this contract are we going to how

18:46is this going to be

18:49distributed

18:50you know are they going to submit an

18:53invoice? How are we going to because in

18:55the past I just think we could have

18:57maybe done it a little differently. So

18:59how how would how would the accounting

19:02be? How would they be paid? And and as

19:05we said if they don't need it you know

19:06we

19:07you know how would it how are you

19:08planning to discuss it?

19:10>> Um we haven't gotten there yet but that

19:12be something that's done on a monthly

19:14basis of invoicing. I would look to the

19:16community development block grant

19:17requirements first on what they decide

19:20and then we would do a monthly billing

19:23if that was what everyone was most

19:24comfortable with. Um.

19:30>> I think Council official brings up a

19:31good point especially, you know, given

19:33the fact that in the past we've

19:35asked for more accounting and I think it

19:36would make everyone comfortable to see

19:38the numbers even though we

19:40using it twice

19:42before. I think that'll be very helpful.

19:44>> Yeah, and I do want to be very clear

19:45that last year's warming center money

19:47that we've provided, they submitted

19:49monthly

19:51financial reports and data reports. So,

19:54we do have a precedent and then what I

19:56would do is go to their guidance for the

19:58reporting requirements for a community

20:00development block grant and then we can

20:01build from that.

20:02>> Of course, we don't see everything that

20:04you would see, so that's good to know.

20:06Thank you.

20:07>> Let me follow up on that question. So,

20:09if you have the data from last year, you

20:11should know

20:12how much per

20:14visit they had, what it cost for each

20:17person they

20:19>> I do, but there's a little bit of a

20:20caveat there in terms of they use mostly

20:23Together Place used mostly volunteers to

20:27staff their warming shelter. That was a

20:29significant challenge um, and warming

20:32shelters typically use paid staff or

20:35stipend staff. So, what their number is

20:38last year will be different when you pay

20:41staff to be able to be there

20:43>> [clears throat]

20:43>> and costs will have gone up.

20:46>> So,

20:47I guess the question I would ask is why

20:49aren't they using volunteers this year?

20:51They can't get them.

20:52>> No, it's not a matter of not being able

20:53to get them. There's very specific

20:55requirements for a volunteer in a

20:57warming shelter. They should be going

20:58through specific training. You should

21:01have like a really a core

21:03volunteers that are there on a regular

21:05basis for relationship building

21:08to be there in case of emergencies. It

21:10is very, very hard to get consistent

21:13volunteers to stay overnight in a

21:14warming shelter. So, it's not like

21:16they're choosing. They just know that

21:18it's a better model for both reducing

21:21consistency and keeping them staffed.

21:24>> So, what we're saying is if

21:27they don't have paid help, they don't

21:29want to be a warming shelter. Is that

21:31correct?

21:31>> If they don't get paid help, I wouldn't

21:33recommend them being a warming shelter.

21:36>> Even if they go through the training?

21:38>> It's more than just [clears throat]

21:39training. So, even last year

21:42they were ebbing and flowing their

21:43volunteers because it's a very high

21:46burnout situation. If you were there one

21:48night and there are crisis is going on

21:51or if you're not used to working with

21:52this population,

21:54it's very hard to keep on coming back on

21:56a regular basis. And you've got to stay

21:58pretty much awake through the night. So,

22:01it is a very hard model. To be honest,

22:04they like pulled miracles last year with

22:07only being closed, I think, one night

22:09out of the whole winter.

22:11Um and so, I would say

22:14professionally and what I've seen as for

22:15models, I would actually be very

22:18concerned if they were coming forward

22:19and saying, "We want to just do this on

22:21volunteers."

22:24>> Councilor Leonard.

22:25>> I was just going to say to to all the

22:27points you just brought up,

22:30I did a few volunteers over at the

22:33Mansion Church in the

22:35Um

22:36anyway,

22:37yeah, the the burnout is very, very

22:39real. Um

22:41when I did it

22:43the those few times over at the Mansion

22:45Church,

22:46the other cuz they try to partner you up

22:48with one other person at a minimum. I

22:51think you have to have one other person

22:52staying up with you.

22:53And it was always consistently for me

22:57another unhoused person who was already

22:59going through all these other issues um

23:02as well. But,

23:04I want to say the night before I did my

23:05first volunteer, one of their volunteers

23:08actually was assaulted by someone who

23:10was uh going in as well. So,

23:12relying on people to volunteer their

23:14time, and a lot of these volunteers

23:16typically also have like jobs or

23:18part-time jobs. And so, for me, I I

23:21didn't

23:22sleep at all that night, and literally

23:24had to go back to work uh the following

23:26day. Granted, I I worked at night at the

23:28time, so it didn't matter all that much.

23:30But, the point being is

23:31uh to to your point, uh Director Ganim,

23:34it is it is

23:35a necessary issue, cuz obviously these

23:38people do need a place to stay,

23:40but we can't actually offer a safe place

23:42to stay if we can't provide safe uh in

23:46this place working conditions, cuz

23:48that's what a lot of this volunteer work

23:50is. It's

23:51it is work at the end of the day. So,

23:54I I don't really want to have a warming

23:56shelter that relies on volunteers just

23:58cuz of the safety issues. I I have just

24:01doing that a few times myself. Anyway,

24:03that that that's my two cents.

24:05>> And I even have to say that I think the

24:07warming shelters do a very good job of

24:08leveraging volunteers in different ways,

24:10whether that's collecting socks or

24:12clothes or bringing in food. So, they do

24:15use volunteers in a way that's more

24:17manageable and consistent and reliable.

24:21>> Sounds efficient.

24:22>> Um I think last year um I think we had

24:27a couple of different warming shelters,

24:28but I know well and in

24:31Together We Can

24:32and New Reach Haven last year.

24:34Because we

24:35last year was it 160 or 120?

24:39Also,

24:40that we um helped contribute to the

24:43warming shelters this season.

24:44>> We gave 80,000 to the I'm sorry, 60,000

24:48to the Brick and 60,000 to Together We

24:50Can is 120.

24:51>> So, this is the second year. This will

24:52be like around 130, and it's not coming

24:55from the taxpayers because we've managed

24:57to kind of figure out different places

24:59to do it, but maybe if we're seeing a

25:01consistency could change next year, but

25:03this might be good information in future

25:05planning

25:06for our homeless committee to kind of

25:09look at what has been needed at least

25:11between 130 and 160 and see how we might

25:15move forward.

25:17We earlier

25:19you know having a track record. Um so um

25:23you know we've asked you a lot of

25:24questions and sent you back twice. We've

25:26sent um the warming shelters some

25:29questions. They've come back. So I'm

25:31comfortable with supporting this at this

25:33point with my image.

25:37>> Also Harrison.

25:38>> Not on this committee, but I also want

25:40to just speak in favor

25:42um

25:43>> [clears throat]

25:43>> of this and thank you for going back and

25:45bringing us this information back. I was

25:47trying to I did a sort of crash course

25:50under you know

25:51try to re-educate myself this week about

25:54all the various buckets that CDBG funds

25:56are eligible for.

25:58Um but I wanted to speak to this sort of

26:00in in two different ways. One, I think

26:03this um Together Place demonstrated

26:06um I think it they really did an

26:08excellent job last season and

26:10considering that and I actually happened

26:12to be out that night with the night that

26:14they closed. And somebody told me that I

26:17encountered somebody on the street and I

26:19you know I was going to try to get them

26:20over to Together Place. They'll know I I

26:22just came from there and it was closed

26:24and

26:25I was shocked, but it was related to

26:26volunteers.

26:28>> [clears throat]

26:29>> I think you know they have a record of

26:32bringing people in from the outside,

26:34right? Other organizations, public

26:36health has been in there. I think that's

26:38really great. So it's open. It's a place

26:39that's accessible.

26:41It is a place that provides recovery.

26:43That's super important. Um but I also

26:46want to speak to this, but from a like a

26:48broader community perspective, we are

26:51would be right now in a situation where

26:53on the coldest nights we would not have

26:55the capacity. And that just doesn't

26:57include like people outside. We've been

27:00experiencing storms in the winter over

27:02the past number of years. Um

27:06I think five or so years ago I spent 36

27:08hours on my street without power and I

27:11live in a house that's 115 you know,

27:13years old and and we lose that battle

27:16pretty quickly, you know, after about

27:17the first 24 hours we lose the battle on

27:19that.

27:20Um and so I I think if we are in a

27:23situation this winter where we have a

27:25series of storms that put power out, we

27:27would be without the infrastructure for

27:30people who who are losing heat in their

27:32homes to even find a place. And I think

27:34we would struggle on an emergency

27:36[clears throat] basis to try to get that

27:38started in the aftermath of the storm.

27:40So I think it would be a a safe a safer

27:43bet to go this direction. I would

27:45support this center and this concoction.

27:49Um

27:50of funds. I appreciate counselor

27:51Balloon's question um on on the

27:54financials or thinking about how we're

27:56dispersing that. I think actually sort

27:58of going forward I'm going to start

27:59asking that a little bit less and less

28:01cuz our behavior is starting to change

28:03and we've seen the benefit from that,

28:04right? Finding out that an organization

28:06doesn't necessarily need the funding

28:08they've asked for. Really being able to

28:10dial in and know what buckets we need.

28:12So I think that this is starting to

28:14sort of work really great for us to have

28:16those financials and be able to dig in

28:18and

28:19think so. Again, thank you and I support

28:21this.

28:25>> We are seeing support from everyone on

28:28these items.

28:29I do want to just mention if we can get

28:30the the number of people we have that

28:32would be helpful. And also if we can

28:34find out if any of the left over funds

28:36can be used for fuel assistance because

28:39we know that's going to be an issue. But

28:42not the unhoused but those that may

28:43become unhoused so they can't afford

28:46to pay for there and let it go.

28:49That would be very helpful.

28:50>> And what I can do as well is the

28:53advisory committee on homelessness has

28:54already started to discuss this and they

28:56are ready to start talking about

28:58policies in terms of I've already sent

29:00Ben

29:02that is talking about some of the

29:03policies. I sent them the policy of that

29:04Portland used for when to open so they

29:06can set a really nice protocol. Some of

29:08the policies on what the most basic

29:10services should be they be offered using

29:12last year's RFP and I can work with them

29:14about the data for reporting. So, we've

29:17got a committee who's ready to kind of

29:20provide some formality and structure.

29:24>> Yes.

29:25>> Are we looking for any kind of help?

29:27>> Yes, we should probably

29:29>> [laughter]

29:30>> um

29:30so, this would next step would be after

29:32getting the information from Mana is it

29:34would go as an order on um city

29:37council's agenda for the next meeting

29:40next

29:41>> Three separate or all together?

29:46>> Uh that's really the committee's

29:48decision. Um you can make a

29:50recommendation to move it forward. I I

29:53honestly I don't know I guess if she had

29:55intended it being one or multiple.

29:58>> Um I really think it could be up to you.

30:02Um

30:04and I would go with your recommendation

30:05and it's all from the same pot.

30:08The only thing

30:10the only thing about Together Place is

30:13not that you need to approve the

30:15allocation for the fund the heating

30:17assistance or the GA that's just that's

30:19something that the council doesn't have

30:20to approve. So, yes just a CD the

30:23community development block grant is

30:25what you need to approve and they're yes

30:26all that's coming from the same pot.

30:28>> I would be comfortable moving it from

30:31with all three since it's all coming

30:32from CD BG if somebody wants to make a

30:35motion.

30:37>> And then you send this to council for

30:39approval all of which would be coming

30:41from the

30:41CDBG.

30:45>> And a motion in a second is right doubt.

30:49Seeing none, we will move this forward

30:51to the next council meeting, which is

30:53Monday, October 26th. And thank you.

30:55Thank you.

30:58I invite Councillor Beck to join us.

31:10>> So, now that brings us to the item about

31:13public comment and remote participation.

31:16Um

31:18This was brought forward by Councillor

31:21Sloan. Did you want to introduce the

31:22item?

31:23>> Sure.

31:24>> [clears throat]

31:24>> Um

31:26So,

31:28Uh

31:29regarding um remote participation,

31:31sorry, my cuz my brain's not working

31:33tonight, either. Um

31:35when we brought remote participation

31:39back in January,

31:41um I said at the time that I, you know,

31:45I was willing to give it a shot, but I

31:46thought we should revisit it if it

31:48didn't seem to be

31:51working the way it should.

31:53And in my opinion,

31:55since we've brought it back, we have

31:58it has not been working well, and it's

32:00been very disruptive.

32:02And

32:04I, in my opinion, and I'm not on this

32:07committee, but um in my opinion, I think

32:10we should just get rid of it. If

32:11somebody needs a an accommodation, we

32:14can we still have the opportunity to

32:15make that, but we have had one

32:19person

32:20participate remotely since we brought it

32:22back in a meaningful way that actually

32:26added something to the meeting. One

32:27person, one time. And other than that,

32:30it has been disruptive, and it has been

32:34mostly not related to city business,

32:36and people have had to be

32:39shut down.

32:41So, that is

32:43you know, the one topic. The other one

32:45is public comment.

32:48Um and I think I was actually the only

32:50person who voted against

32:53changing it to a full hour at the

32:55beginning of the meeting from the 15

32:57minutes.

32:58But, I I thought that would be a good

33:00topic to discuss as well because I

33:03really feel like

33:06the public It If I had my way, it would

33:09be moved to the end of the meeting.

33:11It's That is also very um disruptive.

33:14And yes, we want to hear from the

33:15public, but

33:17it sets the tone for the entire council

33:21meeting.

33:23And not

33:24usually in a good way, I feel like. And

33:28it's

33:30it just So, it is setting the stage and

33:32then our whole meeting is just kind of

33:35um

33:36off, you know? I mean, and then of

33:38course, we have

33:39city staff who are here for particular

33:42um agenda items and they've got to wait

33:45through all of that. And I feel like

33:48that's a bit unfair. And not just city

33:50staff, but members of the public who are

33:52coming in to testify or you know, speak

33:55on particular items.

33:57And they've got to wait through all of

33:59that, too. So,

34:02that's kind of where I'm coming from and

34:04I just wanted it to get on

34:07the agenda for discussion.

34:10>> Sure. And I thought we could have this

34:11conversation in two parts. So, start

34:12First part being the remote

34:14participation policy. Uh if any of you

34:17have comments, questions, thoughts,

34:19direction that I can turn to you.

34:22>> So, I have I definitely have thoughts on

34:24the remote.

34:26From the beginning, once the

34:28tone of the remote participation turned

34:30the way it did, I was not in favor of

34:32it.

34:33And I think it's been very disruptive. I

34:35think it's been degrading to certain

34:37people and

34:39special accommodation will always be

34:41made for those that cannot get out.

34:43People that are not coming are not

34:44saying they cannot get out.

34:46And you can't make it every week.

34:48I mean, that's that's life. If you're

34:52just been here who is here all the time

34:53speaking and you can't make it on one

34:55week, they can probably wait till the

34:56next week. So, I don't think we're going

34:57to be excluding people. So, I would be

35:00in favor of getting rid of the remote

35:02participation.

35:04>> [clears throat]

35:04>> That's a walker.

35:06>> Uh my question around it is

35:09uh

35:10has other cities taken their their

35:13remote access that

35:15their online and how successful do we

35:17know

35:18anything about that or how if it was

35:21disruptive to

35:23the proceedings, I guess you could say?

35:26>> Mr. Jordan.

35:27>> Um

35:30Yeah.

35:33>> Then, uh come to find

35:35>> I can't speak to all other

35:36municipalities, but over the last few

35:38months I have been um

35:42in Sanford and Saco, they don't do

35:44remote participation at all. So,

35:48I I think there were a lot of other

35:49municipalities, but I I can't name them.

35:51So,

35:52>> Sure.

35:52And I will say too, I know when the

35:54original conversation came up, we had

35:56also learned that a lot of other

35:57communities didn't do so.

36:00Um

36:00excuse me. Um

36:02you know, so there was that as well.

36:04Um

36:05I guess the question I would have is for

36:07for staff as far as you know, one of the

36:09concerns that was brought up previously

36:10is like how much of a burden it would be

36:12for staff to to implement the policy.

36:15Again, how has it been as far as the

36:17registration policy, how much time does

36:18it take? You know, is it

36:21how has it affected staff?

36:23>> Yeah, so the actual registration

36:25process,

36:27um usually as you guys know, there's

36:29usually only a few folks that are

36:30registering and so really that has not

36:33been cumbersome on staff's part.

36:36The part I can't really answer is

36:37whether or not it's been effective and

36:39implemented by implementing that

36:41requirement.

36:43Um

36:44because, you know, it sort of the

36:46disruptiveness continued. But no, the

36:48the actual registration process is not

36:50overly burdensome to staff.

36:55>> Uh

36:55what's her name?

36:56>> I would say that the registration

36:58process does have some problems because

37:00we've had an individual call and then

37:03call back under another name.

37:05So it's not Brooke.

37:07So we're not guaranteed that the person

37:09calling is the actual person or the name

37:11that they gave you.

37:14Which I find to be very

37:16>> Yeah, there quite frankly there is no

37:18way to know for sure whether or not

37:20somebody that's registering is their

37:22true name and they always put that they

37:24live in Bangor and that's also, you

37:26know, questionable at times.

37:28But yeah, there's unfortunately there's

37:30no way around that and we do ask folks

37:32to say what they're like what they want

37:33to comment on, whether it's for a

37:35specific agenda item or a general

37:37comment.

37:38And sometimes they they put things down

37:41and often times it's just everything.

37:44So

37:46>> That

37:47that brings up an interesting point. Why

37:48don't we have their pictures up?

37:51Can we require them?

37:54>> That is a legal question. If I had to

37:56guess, no.

37:58That is probably not something we would

37:59want to touch liability wise.

38:02>> What's her fish?

38:03>> Um

38:05I think also since we've come back with

38:07um

38:08city notes

38:09um

38:10only legitimate people have called in.

38:14We have the idea.

38:18So I just hate to

38:20I mean, you know, hindsight is 20/20 so

38:23I would hate to have a situation and I

38:25know I would have avoided that if there

38:27was an unusual circumstance that it

38:29could be pre-approved so that if

38:31somebody just couldn't be here and

38:33really wanted to come in, I mean, they

38:34can always email.

38:36But I I would just like to have a very

38:39um

38:40strong communicative alternative

38:44for the occasion that we might not be

38:45thinking of right now, but it would

38:47might play play into a you know, a need

38:51for someone in the public.

38:53Um so, I'm more kind of doing away with

38:55it as long as, you know, we make it

38:57clear

38:58easier for the email link or

39:01I don't know what exception it could be

39:03because already they register, so that

39:04might just kind of keep the problem we

39:07have ongoing.

39:08Um

39:10so, that's that comment on

39:11>> Council member and then Council you.

39:13Yeah, I I I'm always not the biggest fan

39:17of taking away privileges that uh we get

39:21in the in the public. Um

39:24do Council feel it's pointless only

39:26having one person calling in that is

39:30actually providing

39:32uh

39:33uh

39:33input that is regardless if it's

39:35critical or or supportive of our

39:38uh efforts. Uh having one qualitative

39:41response on there doesn't really vote

39:43too well for the services that we

39:45provide to allow for

39:47um remote participation.

39:51I

39:52do hesitate about wholly

39:56getting rid of it.

39:57Prefer what uh

39:59Council official is saying if there are

40:00circumstances that come into play where

40:03uh

40:04someone is actually coming from a good

40:06place regardless if it's critical or

40:08supportive of city services. I I still

40:10want to hear what those individuals have

40:12to say.

40:14I just don't know

40:16how much work that is being put on to

40:18city staff and what are the

40:20Is that something that

40:23we as the council or the chair has to

40:25basically give the green light or the

40:27thumbs up on? And I I I just don't

40:29really know what pathway we would go

40:31into if we were to do

40:34uh something that has that that acts

40:36like a sieve through through this

40:38process. So, I I'm open to discussing

40:41that, but I'm not sure how I feel about

40:44completely I do understand that other

40:46municipalities have gotten rid of it. Um

40:52Yeah, I I I'm a bit on the fence with

40:53this one. I don't know if you have any

40:55thoughts you want to add to that.

40:58>> Um I think it would be very challenging

41:01to come up with um where the threshold

41:04is for when you say yes and no. And I

41:06think because we are a government, um

41:09and if unless it's very clear and passes

41:11the legal threshold and whatnot, I think

41:14we could find ourselves in a situation

41:16where we are picking and choosing when

41:18somebody can talk remotely. And I think

41:20it again, it would just be very

41:22challenging to make sure that that was

41:24fair and equitable and didn't bring a

41:26legal challenge uh forward. Um I will

41:29say that um sort of I think to Counselor

41:31Fischer's point is

41:33And I have heard from other managers

41:34I've discontinued it that they make sure

41:37that there's um

41:38an option for emailing, which we do

41:40have, and that uh letting folks know as

41:42well that they can call in with their

41:44comments as well, which they could call

41:46into the city manager's office um if

41:48they're unable to attend. Uh but the

41:51feedback that I've heard um is more that

41:54usually if somebody really had something

41:55they wanted to speak on, if they don't

41:57email, they send somebody in their

41:59stead. And I think we've seen that a

42:00handful of times as well.

42:02Um

42:03so, there are other avenues outside of

42:05the remote um

42:07participation, um

42:08but I think if we wanted to you that

42:10route of creating like um specifics as

42:12to when we said yes and when we said no,

42:14that would, yeah, require legal's input.

42:17>> I'm 30.

42:18>> Cuz I would I would argue that an email

42:21may be more effective than

42:23remote participation.

42:25Cuz you're not getting an answer from

42:27remote participation. If someone has a

42:28concern, valid concern, if they were to

42:30call city manager or email, they are

42:32bound to get a response.

42:34Where remote in, you're not getting a

42:36response. It's just like being here.

42:37You're making your

42:39your

42:40wishes known, but not necessarily with

42:42any resolve. So, I think if they know

42:44that they can email us, and if they know

42:46that we do read the emails, a lot of

42:48people think we don't read them because

42:49we don't always respond, but we all read

42:51the emails, and they certainly can call.

42:54Everyone has a phone.

42:55They can pick up the phone and they can

42:57make their concerns known.

43:00>> Councilor Carson.

43:02>> Yes. Um, one

43:04thing I have would be a legal question,

43:06so it might need to be answered in a

43:07But, I I was under the impression, and I

43:10could be misremembering, but if [snorts]

43:13we, like, we are compelled to be present

43:16at meetings,

43:17right? And but there are are are

43:19exceptions where we can be remote, but I

43:21was under the impression that if one of

43:23us needs to be remote, that the public

43:26needs to be provided the same access to

43:29the meeting that that the councilors

43:32have. That if like if we were online, we

43:33would also have to provide that access

43:35of participation in the same way. And I

43:37could really be misremembering that

43:40completely, but I do have a question

43:41about that.

43:43Um

43:43>> It's totally separate. I do remember.

43:46>> Is it

43:46>> City solicitor is discussing that. The

43:48two are not related.

43:49>> They're not related. Okay.

43:51Um, and then my comment on this would

43:52just be that,

43:54um, I

43:55>> [clears throat]

43:55>> I think I would be I'm open to

43:56discussing this policy.

43:59I'm not, um,

44:03I I think for me it's difficult to

44:06approach this

44:07with the basis of

44:09the conversation being who does or does

44:11not participate as our reasoning for

44:14wanting to talk about this.

44:17Um as of right now, it would be true

44:20that it hasn't necessarily having remote

44:22part participation hasn't necessarily

44:25produced a robust um public

44:28participation in that avenue.

44:30But I necess- I don't necessarily have

44:32any um

44:34what I would see personally as

44:36what I legitimate reasons to go in a

44:38different direction at this time.

44:43>> Dr. Flynn?

44:44>> I was just going to say regarding your

44:45comment about um whether or not the

44:49public needs to have the same access to

44:51the meetings.

44:52I don't believe we're even required to

44:55have public comment at all. Like

44:59legally, we're not required to do that.

45:01We do it and I'm not proposing we get

45:03rid of public comment. But

45:06and we're we're certainly not required,

45:09I don't believe, to offer it remotely.

45:14>> Um my opinion is if if if our policy was

45:17to engage with people,

45:19I would say we can't have to keep Zoom

45:20because, you know, we be you know,

45:22emailed you can't you can't engage but

45:24not in the same kind of way and phone

45:25calls you can't engage with because you

45:26leave a voicemail. But our policy is not

45:29to engage. Um

45:31you know, because I'm looking at it from

45:33a technical standpoint. How many times

45:35do these calls start up with, "Can you

45:36hear us? Can you hear me? Can you hear

45:38us? Can you hear me?" And then whether

45:40or not, you know,

45:42we pause for a moment cuz if there's an

45:43objection point more than whatever,

45:45whether or not that person needs to be

45:46stopped or whatever, it adds it detracts

45:49from the meeting, not adds. Um you know,

45:52so I don't see anything meaningfully

45:54lost for the public where there's other

45:56avenues to speak to us directly cuz

45:58again, our policy is we

46:01we don't engage during the public

46:03comment period. We're here to listen.

46:05And so, we're all reading the emails, if

46:07we're all getting the the voicemails

46:09forwarded to us, um I think the meetings

46:11are are more streamlined when you come

46:13in, if you want to speak to us

46:14face-to-face,

46:16come to the podium, say what you have to

46:18say for your three minutes, and I'm I'm

46:20happy to hear it. I'm absolutely happy

46:22to hear it. Um criticisms, whatever,

46:24there's nothing I I I don't want to hear

46:26about city business. That's That's for

46:29me is the key. Uh so, I'm I'm in favor

46:31of the removal of the Zoom option, cuz I

46:33just I don't see it adding to the

46:36efficiency of our meetings.

46:39Other comments?

46:46Now, if if there wants to be a change,

46:49um

46:50is there any recommendation from this

46:52committee at this time to make a change

46:54for the Zoom policy?

47:02Okay,

47:04I'll cut again.

47:05>> I would move to remove the remote

47:07participation via Zoom from the council

47:10meetings.

47:11>> Okay.

47:11>> With special accommodation for those

47:13that are physically unable to attend.

47:16>> Okay, we have a motion.

47:22I mean,

47:23typically as as chair, I don't second,

47:25but in this case, we're a small

47:27committee, I I will second this, since

47:29no one else will.

47:30Um I'm assuming there will be doubt.

47:32Uh Counselor Leonard.

47:33>> Uh just a question on the motion, um for

47:37further

47:38um differently abled person,

47:41or of the conversation that we had

47:43before,

47:44how do we How do we determine whether or

47:47not that that person's applicable for

47:49remote participation in that meeting?

47:51>> That's a great question. So, um we do um

47:54as with um like any of our services, uh

47:57we are required under the ADA to provide

48:00reasonable accommodations and there's a

48:02whole dialogue and process that you go

48:04through in order to grant those. Which

48:07in my mind is a separate issue than

48:09creating different thresholds around

48:12other related items that don't fall

48:14under the ADA and as to whether or not

48:16they would be allowed.

48:18>> Okay.

48:18>> And that is something we're legally

48:19obligated to offer regardless of the

48:23policy. So.

48:25>> And just to clarify this motion too, we

48:27as a committee don't have the authority

48:28to change the policy ourselves. This is

48:30strictly a recommendation is what this

48:32is.

48:33So whether this passes,

48:36it doesn't change the policy. It just

48:38says to the council the whole this is

48:40what

48:40this committee recommends.

48:43Um

48:44Is there doubt on this motion?

48:48Okay. So what we'll do a roll call vote

48:50on that. Uh counselor Fish.

48:56>> [snorts]

48:57>> I really don't like the way it's been

48:59used, but I really hate taking it away

49:03because I just think we take it away,

49:05the first thing that's going to happen

49:06is, you know, we're going to find a

49:08situation.

49:10Um it is distracting. It does take time.

49:14But I just don't know that um you know,

49:16it's one or two people. I just kind of

49:17hate punishing a lot of people because

49:20of one or two bad apples.

49:22So um

49:24I think it's point where I'm at with it.

49:27Uh you know.

49:29>> So we have we have counselor Otto.

49:31>> No.

49:32>> And counselor Dean.

49:33>> Yes.

49:34>> Counselor Walker.

49:35>> Yes.

49:36>> And I will be a yes as well.

49:38So that's the recommendation to the

49:39council three to two to change the Zoom

49:42policy. As the motion said that they can

49:45you know move it but make accommodation

49:47for those um

49:48who have actual accommodation needs.

49:51The second half of this conversation was

49:52moving the public comment to the end of

49:54the meeting.

49:55Um

49:56>> I have a question.

49:57>> Go ahead, sir. Council Louis.

49:58>> Um I have

50:00legal comments on this for the

50:02>> If you would like, absolutely.

50:04>> I think we need to.

50:05>> Spurk.

50:11Comments on the potential of moving the

50:14public comment to the end of meetings.

50:18Council Leonard then Council Harris.

50:20>> I have no strong feeling one way or the

50:23other about this.

50:25Um if it's the will of this committee to

50:30unlike the previous one where I do have

50:31some pretty stern uh

50:34uh beliefs on, this one I don't see as

50:38problematic. If we want to shift it to

50:41uh the end of the meeting or not. If

50:42it's the will of this committee and the

50:43majority to uh

50:45put it forward, I will respect the

50:47committee's wishes.

50:49>> Council Johnson and Council Finch.

50:51>> Um thanks. And again, I'm not on this

50:53committee. I

50:55have a preference for again, this is

50:57something that I would be willing to

50:58continue to discuss and I've been going

50:59to think about some sort of a hybrid

51:01thing where maybe we shorten that into

51:0345 and leave at the chair's discretion

51:06the ability to add something at the end.

51:09The struggle that I have is that our

51:12meetings are just not

51:14um

51:16it's just not friendly a friendly time

51:19to working people in the public. 7:00

51:21p.m. is some most people, right? If

51:24you're working that day shift, you're

51:25just getting home. You have kids to

51:27feed, you know, you got to get somebody

51:30outside and a prescription you've got to

51:31pick up for grandma and all these

51:33different things that you have to do and

51:347:00 p.m. you have to be here to do

51:37public comment or comment on city

51:39business. It's it's already just not a

51:41friendly time. And so I think if we move

51:43it even later, we are going to

51:45necessarily have council meetings where

51:49more people will be impacted by that.

51:52There are often nights where our city

51:53business is a half an hour or less and

51:55on so on all of those other nights, it

51:58really wouldn't be much to ask people to

52:00wait another 29 or 30 minutes to get to

52:02their

52:03comment. [clears throat] But there have

52:04been nights where city business goes on

52:07for quite some time because we're in a

52:08very robust debate as a council about

52:11business. And on those nights, people

52:13who have to get their kids in bed

52:17or would otherwise have you know, they

52:18they've built that little bit of time to

52:20come give us the business about

52:22something and now they can't because

52:24we've put that at the end. And I think

52:26yes, we're here to do city business.

52:28That's what our role is in that meeting,

52:30but we're also here to hear from the

52:31public and I think that we should be

52:33willing to do that in a way that is

52:36better suited for the public than for

52:37ourselves.

52:39And yes, I recognize all the things that

52:40that means that staff will then have to

52:42wait a little longer to speak about

52:45their items for city business or people

52:47who have come in for a certain item. But

52:49I see that is different, too. I think

52:51when someone knows that they're coming

52:53in to speak on a certain item for city

52:55business, they have planned to make sure

52:57they're going to be there for that item.

52:59versus somebody who maybe just really

53:02needs to tell us something in public

53:03comment and then has to get out the door

53:05to go do other things. So,

53:08thank you.

53:08>> Council member Fish.

53:10>> Um I agree um

53:12I don't know about that at the end

53:14sometimes

53:15but I agree that um for the convenience

53:18of the public we serve, they come in and

53:20I think also a lot of times yes, people

53:23that are watching and come regularly, I

53:25think they get it that if it's on

53:28on the agenda, they can speak. But I

53:30think that for the people that might be

53:32confused and they didn't take their

53:33opportunity to speak and then they're

53:35waiting till the end and then they want

53:37to speak. I would hate to say, well, you

53:38lost your opportunity because your

53:40opportunity was to speak when it was up

53:43and now they've that's passed them by.

53:45So, I see um you know, an opportunity I

53:48I see you could make the mistake of

53:50taking an opportunity away from the

53:52public that might be confused because

53:54even the regular sometimes get confused

53:56like, oh it's first reading I can't

53:57speak but I wanted to speak. So, I think

53:59it would even add to potentially taking

54:02your voice away where in the beginning

54:04we can always interrupt them and say, oh

54:07you can come back but if it's after the

54:09fact they can't come back cuz we've

54:10already read it and it's already passed

54:12or failed and

54:13would not have the opportunity to hear

54:15them and sometimes after hearing them

54:17we've changed some of us have changed

54:18our mind. So, um so I I see that being a

54:25>> Councilor Fluke.

54:27>> Well, I think I mean in addition to, you

54:30know, to setting the the tone for the

54:31meeting

54:33like a lot of people just leave after

54:35public comment. Like most of the room

54:37clears out. And so,

54:40I actually think that's a disservice

54:41because they are not

54:44our residents

54:46are not hearing

54:48all of the other city business that we

54:50are

54:51doing.

54:52And they would hear that if

54:55if we reversed it, they would hear all

54:57of the other things that are going on

54:59in our city and I think that's

55:01important, too.

55:03>> Councilor Carson. This is a question. In

55:06our current

55:07public comment

55:10that large poem that we read at the

55:12beginning of every meeting

55:15and every time it says, this is the

55:16portion set aside, I really want someone

55:18to say for the long paragraph I'm about

55:19to

55:20it says that public comment will be

55:23there is a time limit um

55:26will be limited to no more than 1 hour.

55:30And that language makes me feel like

55:32there is already flexibility

55:35um and chair discretion in there because

55:37it doesn't say we actually have to go

55:38for an hour. It only says that we will

55:41go for no more than one hour.

55:43So, I sort of feel like in this current

55:45time, so this is maybe a question about

55:47the current policy for legal or

55:48somebody's interpretation whose brain is

55:50turned on today. But,

55:53would this be able to be solved as

55:55simply as that the chair has discretion

55:57to say, "Okay, you know, 40 minutes or

55:5945 minutes and then we're going to kick

56:01that 15 to the end."

56:04>> Councilor Noble.

56:05>> Uh, technically your answer is yes.

56:07Like, if uh, the chair wants to,

56:11they can just say, "Hey, you know what?

56:13I'm not feeling public comment tonight.

56:15No public comment." Now, of course, they

56:17don't recommend we do that, but in fact,

56:19that is per our charter and the chair

56:22does have the ability

56:23to Yeah, no, I mean, we

56:29Public comment at this level is a

56:31privilege, it's not a right. And I know

56:33a lot of people have an issue when I say

56:35that, but that's literally what the case

56:37is for us. I I take the opinion that we

56:41should

56:43try to treat the privilege as a right as

56:45much as possible. Obviously, the

56:47conversation that we're having right

56:48here is about the credibility of the

56:50agents that come before us and so that's

56:53a viable conversation to have in turn to

56:57what is the privilege that we do offer

56:59to our constituents and so people that

57:02do want to lay it out public

57:04public comment. But, yes, uh, to answer

57:07your question, if we so wanted to,

57:10public comment could be one minute or

57:11zero minutes if we wanted to.

57:15>> Councilor Flounlory and Councilor

57:16Deering.

57:17>> I see that as being kind of a nightmare

57:19to for the chair to call that like

57:21during the meeting because it's going to

57:23be prompted by

57:25probably something that's happening in

57:27the room and the folks in the room are

57:30not going to be happy if

57:32you know, if they're expecting an hour

57:34and then all of a sudden they're getting

57:3515 minutes and then they're told that

57:37they need to wait. I I just see that

57:38opening up a whole new can of worms. So,

57:40I think we

57:41need to either have it at the beginning

57:43or have it at the end or go back to the

57:4515 minutes and the rest at the end or

57:47whatever, but

57:49sort of deciding that on a meeting by

57:51meeting basis, in my opinion, just is

57:53going to

57:55cause the animosity from the public.

57:58>> But, the meeting of the council was

58:00>> We used to have 15 minutes of comment,

58:02which really was not enough.

58:04And then we went to the hour. Maybe it's

58:06a little bit longer than it should be,

58:08but often times we don't even use the

58:09whole hour.

58:11As far as council chair's discretion, if

58:14we had a giant

58:15agenda for the meeting, which we'd know

58:18ahead of time, and council chair was to

58:21let the public know that we have an

58:23extremely long agenda tonight, we're

58:24going to limit our public comment to

58:26half an hour,

58:27that I think could be done easily.

58:29As far as the tone, I mean, it's been

58:32contentious lately, but it ebbs and it

58:34flows and we don't know when it's going

58:36to turn the other way. We have at least

58:38two new council members coming in that

58:40could change things. You know,

58:42everything changes by whatever happens

58:45in the city. So, perhaps it won't be as

58:47contentious, which would be nice because

58:49we, you know, we'd like to hear from

58:51people. Um setting the tone to make it

58:53more contentious isn't always quite our

58:55fault.

58:56You know, when you're sitting there and

58:57you're hearing things that you don't

58:58like to hear, it's not always the best

59:00feeling when you're trying to get your

59:02city business taken care of. But, the

59:04other thing you said is that people

59:06speak and then they leave. I know people

59:08at home that watch council meetings. You

59:10know what they watch? They watch the

59:12first hour. They tell me, "I saw the

59:13council meeting."

59:15And they tell me what they saw. Did you

59:16see this? No. No. No, I saw that.

59:19The council meeting. They think it's the

59:20public comment. So, I think it's just a

59:22matter of

59:23who you are and what you find

59:24interesting and some some of them don't

59:26find us interest.

59:28Or the city business for that matter.

59:30>> Good luck.

59:31>> As far as being the time of public

59:34comment

59:36I've shortened it a couple of times

59:38because you stand up there, you call,

59:41they line up, and suddenly nobody's

59:44moving towards the microphone. I'm not

59:46going to stand up there and listen to

59:47crickets

59:48while nobody's moving. So, I have ended

59:51it a minute.

59:53>> You can end that.

59:55>> There is

59:56>> People at home think we're crazy.

59:59>> It's live.

1:00:01It's going to be a long two hours.

1:00:03>> That's your pet peeve, isn't it?

1:00:06So, it's not really saying getting

1:00:09that you're going to end it, but when it

1:00:12when it's done, it's done. People want

1:00:13to move around. They're starting to get

1:00:15fidgety, too. So, it's really about

1:00:17watching the gallery and who's moving

1:00:20and who isn't.

1:00:21So, you do have the right. You can end

1:00:23it.

1:00:25>> Councilor one,

1:00:27just actually a point on what Councilor

1:00:29Dean brought up. It might actually be

1:00:30beneficial for us for our

1:00:33obviously we can't do this when it's

1:00:35live, but whenever we post our YouTube

1:00:39videos um

1:00:41uh for for the public to watch after the

1:00:43meeting happens, might be good on us to

1:00:45actually put just a even a single time

1:00:48time stamp on this is public comment

1:00:51when it starts here, and then here's the

1:00:53actual city council meeting. So, that

1:00:55people can like jump ahead if they want

1:00:56to watch the actual uh council meeting

1:00:59later on. Just food for thought. I mean

1:01:05>> We For my part, I mean, whether it's the

1:01:08front or the end, I'm there for the

1:01:09whole thing. Uh but, I guess the only

1:01:12technical piece of it I would see is

1:01:14that

1:01:16for the issue for those who come to

1:01:17speak on certain items, they don't know

1:01:19when to speak, and they just start

1:01:20going, and they got a minute and a half

1:01:22into it and they're like, "Whoa, whoa,

1:01:23whoa, wait a minute. You know, that's

1:01:24actually order 26, whatever, is if it

1:01:29were at the end,

1:01:30you know, then, you know, as those that

1:01:32are coming up, they're getting up and

1:01:33speaking, well, then whatever's left is

1:01:34left." Um

1:01:37but, you know, I

1:01:40I have a strong feeling about that if

1:01:46it's like this, if if the issue is it's

1:01:49convenient for people to come, then you

1:01:51might as well say all comment happens

1:01:52immediately, whether it's on the agenda

1:01:53or not. It's like, "You know what? This

1:01:55is the time for the public." And then

1:01:56once it's done, then it's between us and

1:01:58staff to work through the issue and

1:02:00we'll think about what was told to us,

1:02:02rather than having to stop, "Okay, and

1:02:04when are you going to come up and talk

1:02:05about this item?" Like, come in, talk,

1:02:07and that's it. I think that was changed

1:02:10way back when before I was elected to

1:02:11give people those who say, "I've got

1:02:13problems with potholes not being

1:02:15addressed on my street, and also I want

1:02:16to talk about this bond you're going to

1:02:18do." And if I only get 3 minutes as

1:02:20well,

1:02:21actually back then they didn't have a

1:02:223-minute rule. So, they didn't They got

1:02:24all the time in the world to speak about

1:02:26it. So, I don't know, maybe that's a

1:02:27food for thought of changing the policy.

1:02:32I don't have the answer. I I I don't

1:02:34have the answer, but I mean, I

1:02:35understand both sides of it. I just I

1:02:36can't make a good case either way at

1:02:38this moment.

1:02:40Um

1:02:41is there any other thoughts or comments

1:02:43on this part of the discussion?

1:02:45Pigs or fish?

1:02:46>> I think

1:02:47piggyback on what you said, at least now

1:02:50they have something that's not on the

1:02:51city business, they do have the 3

1:02:53minutes, but I think they can also come

1:02:54back up and have another 3 minutes if it

1:02:57is specifically on something on the

1:02:59agenda. But again, you're saying

1:03:00sometimes they start and and we don't

1:03:03take keep track of well, they talked for

1:03:05a minute before we realized they can't

1:03:06talk and it's not taken away from them

1:03:09later. So,

1:03:11so I I think I do have strong feelings

1:03:13about this. I just see more confusion

1:03:15with the public of being sort of

1:03:18hijacked their opportunity to talk on a

1:03:21on an agenda item because they're

1:03:23confused. And so if they don't speak it

1:03:25when they're supposed to and they come

1:03:26up after, would we shut them down and

1:03:29say, "Well, sorry, you had your chance

1:03:31when it came up during council meeting

1:03:33and you didn't and now you've lost your

1:03:35opportunity." So, I have that concern

1:03:38and then also for elderly or people with

1:03:40disabilities that want to get home and

1:03:43they're waiting

1:03:44through the night

1:03:46I can see perhaps that interfering with

1:03:48that as well.

1:03:53>> Does this committee have any thoughts or

1:03:55recommendation or motion you want to

1:03:56make about potential recommended change

1:03:59or is this committee satisfied with

1:04:01where it's at right now?

1:04:04>> I'm satisfied. Satisfied where it's at

1:04:06right now.

1:04:09>> You second.

1:04:11>> [laughter]

1:04:15>> You know, unfortunately as as new

1:04:16councils come on it'll be a conversation

1:04:18that will come back again on the floor.

1:04:25>> Except for Alan I know I need to speak.

1:04:28>> [laughter]

1:04:29>> I think I actually just wanted to make

1:04:31one other comment about this but

1:04:35which is that it's been really

1:04:37interesting watching, you know, there

1:04:38there has been, right? People will come

1:04:40and they get up for public comment,

1:04:41there's sometimes a little confusion, do

1:04:43I speak now, speak later? But over time

1:04:46the public has started to help each

1:04:47other with

1:04:49that differentiation, right? Like Scott

1:04:51Hardy and he I he'll forgive me for

1:04:53calling his name out, right? But Scott

1:04:54Hardy will get up and he'll say, "Wait a

1:04:56minute, right? I want to talk about two

1:04:59things and I should talk about this

1:05:00later, right?" And then [clears throat]

1:05:01the chair will say, "Yeah."

1:05:02And it certainly helps other people in

1:05:04the public to think about when

1:05:06should I get up now or am I waiting for

1:05:08later?" So, I have started to see that

1:05:09and I find that to be pretty wonderful,

1:05:12actually. People

1:05:14helping each other through.

1:05:16>> Okay, was anything on our agenda? So, we

1:05:18are adjourned at 7:37 p.m.

```*